Because I never tire of pointing this out, the Scalfari interview was provided to the Holy Father for review, prior to publication. It’s entirely reasonable to assume that it reflects their conversion quite accurately, if not verbatim.

Likewise, in light of the fact that Pope Francis recently, of his own free will, went back to Scalfari for yet another on-the-record conversation, the most likely explanation for the reappearance of the first interview that the Holy Father wants it there.

[Would you please provide a link to something that says that the the Holy Father reviewed it and approved it? Thanks.]

I would like to know this as well. I just referred to this interview on my blog yesterday as false and spurious. I think media marxists and schismatics want to derail the upcoming meeting on the family and marriage, etc.

The art of propaganda is simply repeating something over and over until people believe it is true.

On the Vatican website, the Latin text of St. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical titled “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” under No. 2 still today reads “pro omnibus” (for all) instead of “pro multis” (for many) – even though the official text in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis reads “pro multis”.
Clearly, in that instance, the Pope’s words had been manipulated by someone with a personal agenda and access to the website.

Clearly, Popes cannot personally oversee everything that is being done in their name. They should be surrounded by people they can trust, but is that the case?

[Good catch. I have written about this before, but it had slipped my mind.]

MGL wrote It’s entirely reasonable to assume that it reflects their conversion quite accurately, if not verbatim.

I agree. Back then, Father Lombardi said it “should be considered faithful on the whole to the mind of the pope, but not necessarily in its particular words and the accuracy of its details.”

Regarding the most recent interview, Fr. Lombardi said essentially the same thing – that it:“captures the spirit of the conversation” but “individual expressions that were used and the manner in which they have been reported cannot be attributed to the pope”.

Both quotations are from the Catholic Herald article of 14 July, 2014.

To my knowledge, the only interview that was submitted to Pope Francis for review prior to publication was the one conducted by Fr. Antonio Spadaro which was carried by the various Jesuit magazines (America (US) and Thinking Faith (UK) being the English-language publications).

When I read this yesterday, it came as a real shocker to me. Like many, I had come to believe (or maybe it’s hoped) Scalfari had taken the Pope’s words in the their first interview out of context and manipulated them for his own benefit. In that light, I simply couldn’t understand why Francis would once again give an interview to this person. The only reason that came to mind was, in fact, he was happy with the way the story had been written.

Right now, my inclination leans toward the belief the Pope probably said the things Scalfari has reported. Maybe Scalfari sensationalized some parts, but why else would Francis travel down this road again if he felt he had been wrong? Maybe I’m out to lunch on this issue (wouldn’t be the first time) but a story just written by Edward Pentin mentioned the possibility of a similar line of thinking. I won’t link to the story, but here is the relevant part.

“The overlooking of the obvious has led some to speculate that a possible strategy might be at play. This could entail using Scalfari’s foggy memory, radical views and tendency towards sensationalism to exaggerate certain issues in order to provoke a debate while avoiding the possibility of pinning anything on the Pope. This is unlikely but not impossible, and many Catholics would consider it scandalous if true, causing an unnecessary amount of confusion.”

I would very much like to see the document that holds that the contents of the Vatican website are in any way “official” or part of any pope’s ordinary Magisterium. The interview goes up and then it goes down. So what? Maybe someone thought that by maintaining a copy on the site, it would be easier to “control the story” — if that’s possible — or at the very least, invite those interested in the interview to link somewhere else on the Vatican site rather than being directed to buy Italian perfume. Sheesh.

Back last October, Vatican Insider quoted Fr. Lombardi as saying that it was the Secretariat of State which made the decision about whether the interview should be on the website, although it isn’t a hundred percent clear whether he means they decided to post it or to take it down.

The Vatican Insider article was published on October 15, 2013, which was Cardinal Bertone’s last day in office. We now have a new Secretary of State and new allocations of responsibility.

In response to journalists’ questions about the reason for this decision, the Holy See’s spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi replied: “The information in the interview is reliable on a general level but not on the level of each individual point analysed: this is why it was decided the text should not be available for consultation on the Holy See website. Its removal is a final update on the nature of this text. Some mistakes were made regarding its value, which was questioned. The Secretariat of State took the decision.”

Ever since the interview was published, Fr. Lombardi declared that the Pope had not [not] looked over the text personally. Scalfari had sent the text to the Vatican.

As the Vatican has a tech department with “yesterday’s technology tomorrow!” as its motto (I think I’m paraphrasing our esteemed host here, btw) [Indeed.] I wouldn’t be suprised if it was as simple as someone restoring the backup, not reslising that restored deliberately removed content too.

It would be interesting to see if more previously removed articles are up again.

MGL My thoughts exactly-following the earlier interview there was no disaccord/correction/dissent nor qualification whatsoever by Fr Lombardi on the Pope’s behalf /behest. The Scalfari -Francis interview was not removed from the website for some weeks. Without wishing to give credit to Scalfari it may be less than charitable to suggest that he (Scalfari) is or has been “economical with the truth” For the Pope to repeat the process suggests, not unreasonably to me, that he trusts the integrity of the distinguished albeit atheist journalist!

This is a link to the NCRegister article about the October interview (11/22/2013). Mr. Scalfari says [SCALFARI says? Big deal. Gratis asseritur….]that he sent the interview and was told that Pope Francis gave permission for it to be published. Whether or not the Holy Father actually read the interview is not clear, only that he permitted publication.

The pope is shrewd enough to know what he’s getting into when he sits down with a reporter. There were inaccuracies in what Scalfari’s last interview recorded, but obviously these don’t bother the pope enough to not grant him a second interview. My guess is that we care about this much more than Pope Francis, and that the pope wants it retained because the message it communicates is what Francis wants the world to hear.

We need to stop blaming the media for how Francis is being cast. The pope is choosing to use them as a tool with full knowledge of how they’ll spin his words. The fact that he went to Scalfari a second time shows that the media’s twist is very much part of the message he intends to communicate. Otherwise, he would have “learned his lesson” a year ago. If someone has a problem with what they read in the paper about the Pope, they should be pinning it on Francis, not the messenger.

I’m afraid there is not much of an “upside” to this. The best interview of a Pope I’ve ever read/watched was Raymond Arroyo’s interview with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, just a few years before he became Benedict XVI. I wish Mr. Arroyo might be given another chance with Pope Francis to clarify some of the statements the Holy Father made in this interview. It seems to me that His Holiness is purposely being vague and general in his responses. Why? I don’t know. In an age where people are looking to the Church for answers, we don’t seem to be getting many lately.

This is all disappointing. I would like the Pope to perhaps have a nice SILENT retreat! But he seems to meet with atheists and pagans and many others but there is no space for some certain faithful Catholics and that is a shame. The Pope is not dumb. He allows these interviews and he knows there is no exact recording and he also knows that things will be published and then what is published is not denied and the faithful are left to scratch their heads and try to put a good spin on things. It just keeps happening over and over and over.

Fr., perhaps he’s giving room for “serene theology done on the knees” to blossom and be debated openly, whilst all the time maintaining plausible deniability? Or perhaps he’s teaching us all that we shouldn’t be so fixated on the words of the Pope when all the doctrine is out there for everybody to learn already.

I can think of other reasons, but charity prevents me from uttering them in a public forum.

In a previous thread on this blog, I believe I linked John Allen’s article which repeats Scalfari’s claim that he had “showed the text to Francis for his approval.” I haven’t seem Fr. Lombardi’s denials of this claim that jhayes cites, but it appears that poor Fr. Lombardi is often out of the loop!

From the same article, all emphases mine:

While stressing the basic ‘trustworthiness‘ of [the] interview, Fr. Federico Lombardi … left room … for the possibility of small imprecisions.

– “Lombardi said … the text accurately captured the ‘sense’ of what the pope had said, and that if Francis felt his thought had been ‘gravely misrepresented,’ he would have said so.

In addition, we have the following lines of evidence, all corroborating the basic reliability of the first Scalfari interview:

Neither the Vatican nor the pope himself have offered any clarifications, corrections, or retractions of the original interview, except for one thing I had previously forgotten: the claim that Francis had had a mystical experience “in the room next to the one with the balcony overlooking the square.” The Vatican was quick to point out that there is no such room, and the pope never left the Sistine Chapel. But this correction actually strengthens the case for the basic accuracy of the first interview, since the Vatican could easily have made other corrections if they felt the need to do so.

– When the interview was first taken down, Fr. Lombardi said that it was “reliable on a general level, but not on the level of each individual point analyzed,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

– The interview is now back up on the Vatican website.

– The Holy Father has since, apparently on his own initiative, gone back for another unrecorded-on-the-record chat with Scalfari.

Seriously, were this any other public figure in the world, we would have long ago taken account of all these circumstances and concluded that the interview text is likely to be broadly reliable, though perhaps with an asterisk to indicate some paraphrasing. But as far as I know, no evidence has been provided that Scalfari is unreliable, has a foggy memory, or has acted unscrupulously, so we should probably stop calumniating him as if those things must be true. A veteran journalist does interviews without notes or recordings? If his subjects are happy with this arrangement–and all evidence indicates the pope is perfectly fine with it–what’s it to us?

To answer your question, A veteran journalist does interviews without notes or recordings? No. Probably all reporters do one if not both so that there is no inaccuracies . I have never heard an interview, on say the President, that a transcript is not readily available for others to read themselves.

Also, in the article you posted it states that the Italian Vatican writer Andrea Tornielli is the one that pointed out that there is no such room. The Vatican did not issue that correction, so you can’t claim that the correction strengthens the accuracy of the first interview.

Pardon my imprecision. Cardinal Dolan said the newly-elected pope never left the Sistine Chapel, Tornielli pointed out there is no such room, and (in John Allen’s update) Vatican spokesman Fr Rosica issued a statement denying the mystical event took place as reported. I’m pretty sure that Rosica’s statement (along with Dolan’s comment) qualifies as an official correction.

We’ll have to disagree about Scalfari. Some have claimed that this style of impressionistic journalism is a European thing, but I don’t know if that’s true. But it’s not at all implausible to me that a journalist with several decades of experience working without notes would develop a pretty impressive power of recall, perhaps similar to those people brought up in oral cultures (such as the Apostles). As I said, if his subjects are OK with it, so am I.

But how many straws are left to clutch at? I understand that many people would rather abandon the powers of discernment and common sense they bring to bear in all other situations rather than contemplate the prospect of a pope saying such strange things, but that’s where we are.

Occam’s Razor: The Holy Father can easily, directly issue a rebuke of these representations by Scalfari. He has no problem speaking off the cuff and being heard in any setting he happens to be in. He has not done so.

Look, who am I to judge a Pope, but clearly the Holy Father knows what he is doing. If he truly felt he got burned with the first interview, he wouldn’t have done a second one. Presuming he even did an interview of course. I think faithful Catholics cringe at the idea of having to call out Papal indiscretions, but let’s face it, the Lord never said His Vicar on Earth would be perfect. And he is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Church has had truly sinful Popes in the past – some were murderers, others had concubines and even sired offspring. Arguably, that was at least comparable to some of the scandals Francis is making us endure. So as much as we don’t like it we likely have a Holy Father who has very imprudent tendencies or modernistic (I say modernist*ic*, that is a ‘tendency’ towards modernism, I am not declaring myself a self-made Pope and declaring Francis a heretic, as it would not be my place or anyone’s place on today’s earth to do so) inclinations. I don’t like it, I cringe, and yes, I am losing alot of sleep over it. But Our Lady of Fatima gave us a simple directive on this front “Pray, Pray much for the Holy Father”. I pray a small chaplet (Pater, Ave, Gloria) before each Rosary I say for “The Holy Father and Our Bishop dressed in White”, that is Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, to honor this command of Our Lady’s. You can all do that too. Perhaps you can write the Pope a note as well, but I am not sure how influential that might be, although he is apparently known to pick up the phone and chat occasionally.

You can also all pray a novena to Good St. Anne, Mother of the Immaculate Conception. Her novena starts today July 17, in anticipation of Her Feast Day on July 26.

She is a mother to all who are tempted to despair and who suffer dejection – her trials for 20 years to conceive and the humiliation she bore, even suffering her beloved husband, St Joachim, to abandon her, so to speak for a few months, while he meditated in the desert about his affliction (not having any children). So if anyone can understand the dejection and humiliation and the temptation to despair that faithful Catholics suffer in this current time, it is Good St Anne. She promises to obtain all the graces necessary for those faithful souls who spread devotion to Her. Go to her with your concerns about the Holy Father.

Good St Anne, ora pro nobis!
Novena Prayer to Saint Anne To obtain some special favor

O GLORIOUS St. Anne, filled with compassion for those who invoke thee and with love for those who suffer, heavily laden with the weight of my troubles, I cast myself at thy feet and humbly beg of thee to take under thy special protection the present affair which I commend to thee.

[State your petition.]

Be pleased to commend it to thy daughter, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and lay it before the throne of Jesus, so that He may bring it to a happy outcome. Cease not to intercede for me until my request is granted. Above all, obtain for me the grace of one day beholding my God face to face, and, with thee and Mary and all the Saints, of praising and blessing Him for all eternity. Amen.

Good St. Anne, mother of her who is our life, our sweetness and our hope, pray to her for us and obtain our request. [Three times.]

While speculating on the deeper meaning of this can be interesting, and it certainly is questionable if the Holy Father has only dependable people around him, I think my earlier suggestion of a tech mishap might be right on the mark, in light of it’s subsequent removal.

With luck someone will check the contents of those 5.25 inch floppies next time….

On the Vatican website, the Latin text of St. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical titled “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” under No. 2 still today reads “pro omnibus” (for all) instead of “pro multis” (for many) – even though the official text in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis reads “pro multis”.

It uses pro multis because that is what is in the Vulgate. There is no reference for pro omnibus, except the vanities of someone’s imagination.

while knowledge out of the Conclave is unsafe at best, still according to what I heard this “progressive choice” was rather Card. Martini of Milan, with the present Pope being an attempt for a compromise candidate.

KM Edwards, thank you for that beautiful novena prayer which is just what I needed today for a particular intention. I also forget often that she is my patron as my second name is Anne, and my daughter is Anna, so we will get on our knees to her!

Joseph-Mary, “But he seems to meet with atheists and pagans…”
Erm, that reminded me of something, what was it?
Oh yes, “Why does he eat[f] with tax collectors and sinners?” (Mark 2:16)
And the answer? “When Jesus heard this, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” ”
I suppose we can’t really knock Pope Francis for following Jesus’ lead on that one!

This is much ado about nothing. The interview is up, it’s down, it’s up & it’s down again.
Then a ton of bedwetting. [?!? Myopic.]

I love the Catholic faith. But Catholics……..there is something wrong with you people.

Oh wait I am “you people” too.

Dang it!

Starting to think about BACK TO SCHOOL items? Even text books? When you shop…

... through Amazon, please, come here first? Enter Amazon through my search box. I'll then get a small percentage of everything you buy. (Pssst - Can't see the search box? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. ... If all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians." CDF 2003 and HERE

Support them with prayer and fasting.

CLICK and say your Daily Offering!

Leave Voice Mail for Fr. Z

Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.

WDTPRS

020 8133 4535

651-447-6265

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

... and there will be nearly 1,000,000 page loads this month.

Traditional Catholic? Are you single? Don’t want to be? CLICK!

Help Monks in Wyoming, Fr. Z, and get great coffee too!

And they have tea too!

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

Great gift for newly ordained priests. Folding altar card set for the Traditional Latin Mass.

And check out the stunning FULL SIZE altar cards HERE. I have a set on my altar.

New Gregorian Chant CD by the Benedictines of Norcia!

Wyoming Catholic College!

A great place in Rome…

Identity theft is a serious problem that you do NOT want to have. I use Lifelock.

And for your cybersecurity…

My wish lists

Main Wishlist Kindle WishlistAudio WishlistHam Radio ListNEW

Food For Thought

“The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

- St. John Paul II

A bit more food for thought…

“Only one sin is nowadays severely punished: the attentive observance of the traditions of our Fathers. For that reason the good ones are thrown out of their places and brought to the desert.”

For your consideration…

"One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting."

- C.S. Lewis

More food for thought:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Check out the Cardinal Newman Society feed!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fr. Z’s stuff is everywhere

More food for thought…

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176

Even More Food For Thought

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests."

To set up a recurring, monthly donation (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! Some donations also come through Chase/Manhattan (if you don't like PayPal).

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

Additional Food For Thought

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

What people say…

"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"

Help the Sisters. They have a building project. Get great soap (gifts, etc.) while helping REAL nuns!

Food For Thought

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.